Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6737013" data-attributes="member: 97077">Your examples only work from a particular perspective though. Do you see where the player just rolls that Intimidate skill? That cannot happen in my game. A player only describes what he or she wants the character to do. The DM decides whether or not there is an ability check. The smart play in my game is not to make a check because that robs randomness of its power over your fate.This is why <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?470302-Persuade-Intimidate-and-Deceive-used-vs-PCs&p=6736187&viewfull=1#post6736187" target="_blank">I asked upthread</a> whether people are playing the way you suggest. Because I sense a correlation between this way of playing and disagreement with my position. Thus I think there may be a breakdown of communication along this line.Someone else upthread suggested a bribe/payoff setup. So for example, if Beat Horsedeath successfully intimidates "mechanically," then you can earn Inspiration if you play along with that. Or you can spend Inspiration to ignore it. This would still leave it an open question as to what the DC would be to test Beat Horsedeath's attempt. Beat Horsedeath's goal would also have to be clear (e.g. "get PCs not to fight" or "get PCs to give up gold") so that the players could act in accordance with that to earn their Inspiration. But I think some of you objected to the transparency that would be required to make that work.</blockquote>

Verification